EPTOr, you know, people could stop judging people for wanting to vote for someone and accept they can have their own reasons why they want to vote for Trump, maybe engage in some sort of constructive discussion instead of blindly excising this person from your social circle. It's narrowminded and it may even be for the better if that's the subject you get stigmatized for. Shows just how shallow these people are.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4296
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4604 Posts
Or, you know, people could stop judging people for wanting to vote for someone and accept they can have their own reasons why they want to vote for Trump, maybe engage in some sort of constructive discussion instead of blindly excising this person from your social circle. It's narrowminded and it may even be for the better if that's the subject you get stigmatized for. Shows just how shallow these people are. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On July 17 2016 22:36 Uldridge wrote: @Silicon valley guy story: Or, you know, people could stop judging people for wanting to vote for someone and accept they can have their own reasons why they want to vote for Trump, maybe engage in some sort of constructive discussion instead of blindly excising this person from your social circle. It's narrowminded and it may even be for the better if that's the subject you get stigmatized for. Shows just how shallow these people are. It is a narrowminded generalization to insinuate that detractors of trump have no valid reasons to do so. There is nothing shallow about the dislike of trumps ideas: huge tax cuts for the rich and scapegote brown people and the chinese for why the inequality gap has grown to unacceptable levels and would soar under his ideas. They are out in the open. They have been discussed. Their merits and their lack is known. Forcing repetitions ad nauseam is not "constructive". Not every idea in human cognition can be discussed in a way you would label "constructive". There is no basis for discussion with a person feeling that global warming is a chinese conspiracy to demote the US. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 17 2016 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: 'your argument is really stupid because (missing)' 'I get you think (insert something I don't actually think), but you don't need to (insert something I don't actually do)' 10/10 I've been criticizing Trump over his choice to pick Pence so you saying I disbelieve anything negative about him is wrong. My point was citing this as an example of him being a 'bad deal maker' was just disingenuous, and an example of anti-trumpers inclinations to bash him for the sole purpose of bashing him rather than pick-and-choose meaningful criticism from dishonest criticism. The entire GOP is praising him for his selection it would be so easy for me to defend him on this too but I don't. That's pretty funny Pence was the only example you could point to of you not defending Trump. And it's not even an issue you could "disbelieve", because it's just an out-in-the-open decision Trump made that you either like or you don't (unlike the claim that Trump lashes out at people with personal attacks, which is something you disbelieve). If you couldn't tell, the explanation of why your argument was stupid followed in the next sentence. And that's also pretty funny you're claiming you don't think the media is liberal, even though your "people who don't like Trump suffer from cognitive bias" argument is based largely on the idea those people are knee-jerk following every negative media article they read. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Also lol, forces aborted babies to be burned or buried vs given the option to do so and will have to pay for it themselves. Another bs claim put to rest. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And it's work. People don't have the option to no go. They are trapped there, which is why you don't talk about politics. Edit: their is nothing Bs about that claim. They don't give the woman the fetus back?!?!! It's used for tissue research or disposed of like all medical bio waste. They don't give you gall bladder back after you have it removed. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On July 17 2016 22:55 biology]major wrote: You guys thought I was joking when I said coming out as gay is easier than as a trump supporter? (Where I live in MD). No I don't want a safe space where I can discuss this without fear of attack, I could care less. No point in discussing this stuff in real life anyways unless you actually are in politics. Also lol, forces aborted babies to be burned or buried vs given the option to do so and will have to pay for it themselves. Another bs claim put to rest. I don't really think it's a problem that coming out as gay is easier than coming out as a Trump supporter, can we have a discussion about that? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4604 Posts
On July 17 2016 22:45 puerk wrote: It is a narrowminded generalization to insinuate that detractors of trump have no valid reasons to do so. There is nothing shallow about the dislike of trumps ideas: huge tax cuts for the rich and scapegote brown people and the chinese for why the inequality gap has grown to unacceptable levels and would soar under his ideas. They are out in the open. They have been discussed. Their merits and their lack is known. Forcing repetitions ad nauseam is not "constructive". Not every idea in human cognition can be discussed in a way you would label "constructive". There is no basis for discussion with a person feeling that global warming is a chinese conspiracy to demote the US. I never said they don't have valid reasons to hate Trump, I'm saying that you can't starting to hate people just because they support the lesser/greater of two evils (is Hillary actually the lesser? I don't know anymore...). Just because the discussion has been had here, or on major news networks, does not mean they were had in certain social circles over there. Also: maybe he just hates Hillary? You somehow equate him voting for Trump makes him somehow supportive of Trump's main policies, this doesn't have to be the case. Reasons for support can be different. And your last sentence is more constructive, or less stigmatizing than what the people did to him. You just avoid that topic, you don't completely reject him for his political beliefs. It makes no sense to do this, as he can otherwise be a fun guy. It's not like he's a KKK supporter, or a neonazi.. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28565 Posts
From my perspective being a Trump supporter is also basically out of your control though, but at least there is a chance at changing someone's mind there. I guess it's kinda like the eternal christian dilemma, do you accept that your atheist friends will go to hell or will you spend your life being an annoying fuck trying to convince them to accept god? Difference is that with Trump the impression isn't that the trump supporter himself is going to hell but that he's trying to build a highway to get everyone moving along - if you genuinely believe that a Trump presidency is going to be a disaster then trying to change people's minds seems like the sensible thing to do? I'd expect the same from Trump supporters thinking Hillary will be one, I don't think there's any moral failing or inconsistency here really.. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28565 Posts
On July 17 2016 23:11 Uldridge wrote: I never said they don't have valid reasons to hate Trump, I'm saying that you can't starting to hate people just because they support the lesser/greater of two evils (is Hillary actually the lesser? I don't know anymore...). Just because the discussion has been had here, or on major news networks, does not mean they were had in certain social circles over there. Also: maybe he just hates Hillary? You somehow equate him voting for Trump makes him somehow supportive of Trump's main policies, this doesn't have to be the case. Reasons for support can be different. And your last sentence is more constructive, or less stigmatizing than what the people did to him. You just avoid that topic, you don't completely reject him for his political beliefs. It makes no sense to do this, as he can otherwise be a fun guy. It's not like he's a KKK supporter, or a neonazi.. What if he was a KKK supporter, or a neonazi? How deviant or dangerous must an opinion be before you think it's acceptable to ostracize someone over said opinion? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4604 Posts
 Where is the line indeed? is it at a personal level or a general social consensus level? Ofcourse someone Hitler saluting all over the place won't be hired in Silicon Valley in the first place lol It's pretty difficult to draw that line I guess.. How many people, next to the guy that's a social outcast now, do deviant things in their private circles, keeping it hidden from the people they interact with on daily basis? Is knowing that your coworker is very active in some hardcore BDSM group acceptable to outcast him because you/your coworker(s) can't handle it? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On July 17 2016 23:28 Uldridge wrote: Yeah I thought the same thing when I was writing this actually Where is the line indeed? is it at a personal level or a general social consensus level? Ofcourse someone Hitler saluting all over the place won't be hired in Silicon Valley in the first place lol It's pretty difficult to draw that line I guess.. How many people, next to the guy that's a social outcast now, do deviant things in their private circles, keeping it hidden from the people they interact with on daily basis? Is knowing that your coworker is very active in some hardcore BDSM group acceptable to outcast him because you/your coworker(s) can't handle it? Agreed that the line is thin, but the left's reluctance to see how this is a close race, given their own equally horrendous candidate is what's surprising. Trump raises some valid concerns that would have never been brought up if it weren't for him completely going against the pc thought process. Now we atleast have a discussion around these subjects. As I said before, the open silencing with labels by the left has added to trumps rise. Until they aknowledge that he raised some important points to the American voter, rather than some lunatic who only cares about himself and that anyone who supports him is a bigot, he's gonna continue to rise and eventually win. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4604 Posts
My point is that people have difficulty identifying what is personal and what affects different people. Also, I would debate that choosing between two mainstream candidates, however controversial one of the two (or both) is (are), can't really be viewed as an attack on other people. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 17 2016 13:14 LegalLord wrote: By the way, do people still care about the Supreme Court nomination, or is that just a bit of dysfunction that everyone just decided to look past? I still care a lot and hold it strongly against the republicans. It's just not hitting the news. and it's not that surprising since its' what they said they'd do. But it just proves they're being obnoxiously obstructive and forcing me to vote against them more, reducing my willingness to support the moderate ones who I'd have otherwise being willing to vote for. On the treatment of open trump supporters; I'd imagine there's a fair bit of regional variation, as is common in such things. It's part of the reason for secret ballots and such. I'd say i'ts best to keep your political opinions out of the workplace, and establish it as a policy. It'd help if more people and parties could be reasonable and not vilify the other side so much, though as some people do deserve vilification, it's hard to find the right spot; especially since a lot of people suck at estimating outcomes. Trump's outspoken anti-pcness has exacerbated the problem I think; past and other candidates tended to at least be more circumspect and diplomatic about such things, so it was easier for people on the left to tolerate the candidates from the right. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On July 17 2016 23:45 Soap wrote: The debate feels stifled because the left is acting much like a religion, as if globalization, immigration, interventionism or welfare state are inherently good things and those who don't see it haven't been enlightened. lol, not only does this characterization directly conflict with the rise of Sanders Democrats, it can very easily be flipped and applied equally to the rhetoric of the right. That you or anyone thinks that only "the left" is self-assured in its policy approaches speaks more to your ignorance than anything else. Seriously, it's as though you've literally never heard a Republican lawmaker speak before. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON ― Frustrated at the lack of enthusiasm for his vice presidential pick Mike Pence, Donald Trump is now telling those close to him that he wants a do-over of sorts, which he aims to get by rolling out the names of potential cabinet members, a source who spoke to Trump told The Huffington Post. Trump was disappointed with the rollout of Pence, and the reaction to him, on several levels. He was first piqued that the news leaked before he’d gotten around to telling the runners-up, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie, about his choice. He then had second thoughts, postponed the announcement and spent Thursday night trying to find a way to back out of his choice, according to multiple news reports and the source close to Trump. Trump sees Pence as a politically safe but unexciting choice, the source said. When non-politicians fantasize about running for president, they delight in imagining the unorthodox, thrilling running mate they might choose. For Trump to have ended up paired with such a standard pol, after a year of violating every campaign norm in the book, must be a major letdown. Multiple sources say that Trump wants to name Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, as his attorney general, although knowing Trump, he could change his mind at any moment. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who plays a major role in the campaign, fought against Christie as a VP pick, as reported this week by HuffPost blogger Laura Goldman and later corroborated elsewhere. Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, whom Trump at one point floated as a potential VP, will surely be on the short list for defense secretary, unless of course Kid Rock makes himself available. Source | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On July 17 2016 23:48 Uldridge wrote:Also, I would debate that choosing between two mainstream candidates, however controversial one of the two (or both) is (are), can't really be viewed as an attack on other people. you are free to think that, but the premise is wrong nonetheless. first of all: trump did not start the nomination process as "mainstream" second: active support got him to the nomination despite there being more mainstream alternatives (bush, rubio, cruz) so the usual "voting doesn't matter" got refuted.... thirdly: the ascent through voting population support of populist nationalists with low self esteem and compensatory scape goating of minorities has in the past already led to so adverse outcomes that it can be "really" viewed as an attack on other people | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
